Mojoguy Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 I'd also like to point out that basically every single Trek movie has almost nothing to do with actually exploring the galaxy and discovering new world and species. 2 hour Trek movies don't have time for that. 45 minute episodes can however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TServo2049 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Yes, the two Trek movies about exploring the unknown have been two of the least-regarded. Maybe someday we'll get a good Trek movie that runs with the concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruthie Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 You actually like into Darkness Into Darkness is a very good movie. I think it's better than Star Trek. Too many people get tripped up on the Khan thing. Shame that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TServo2049 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) We get tripped up on the Khan thing because The Wrath of Khan is the greatest Trek movie of all time, and STID glommed into it and fed off of it like some kind of parasite. I think STID would have been a better movie, and could have still told much the same story, if Benedict Cumberbatch's character wasn't Khan. Edited June 30, 2015 by TServo2049 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojoguy Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 We get tripped up on the Khan thing because The Wrath of Khan is the greatest Trek movie of all time, and STID glommed into it and fed off of it like some kind of parasite. I think STID would have been a better movie, and could have still told much the same story, if Benedict Cumberbatch's character wasn't Khan. The movie would have been much better if Cumberbatch's character was just another genetically engineered character like Khan INSTEAD of being THE Khan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4815162342 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) I think STID would have been a better movie, and could have still told much the same story, if Benedict Cumberbatch's character wasn't Khan. I always thought a much better idea would have been if the Klingons had found the Botany Bay and were using the rest of the crew as hostages/leverage to force Khan into working for them into developing weapons, strategizing plans to harass the Federation and wound it. That would sell the Act 2 team-up of Khan and Kirk much better since 1) It's evil Klingons instead of some nebulous Admiral conspiracy, and 2) Easier for Kirk to buy into Khan's plans and team up since he's operating off of general anti-Klingon prejudice in the Federation based on the Klingon souped-up militarization post-ST09. Then have Khan double-cross everyone and want to genocide Klingons, and you have the Act 3 conflict of Kirk torn between what would be a crushing victory for the Federation and letting countless innocents die. Edited June 30, 2015 by 4815162342 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethan Hunt Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 I just wish Khan didn't back stab Kirk at the first opportunity he got... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 I just wish Khan didn't back stab Kirk at the first opportunity he got... I just wish Khan was named something else cause that wasn't Khan. I like my Indian space Rebels played by Hispanics, like they should be. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojoguy Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 They should have just kept Cumberbatch as "John Harrison". Abrams is not as clever as he thinks he is. I worry about SW7 having a shitty twist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrFanaticGuy34 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Interesting reboot-series. First film made $385M WW. "Into Darkness" made $467M WW. How will Star Trek: Beyond do WW? Since the last one was beloved by critics and audiences alike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asyulus Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Interesting reboot-series. First film made $385M WW. "Into Darkness" made $467M WW. How will Star Trek: Beyond do WW? Since the last one was beloved by critics and audiences alike. If Beyond increase the same as ID increase, it will wind up at around $550m. Plus the 50th anniversary. So $750m, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 So $750m, I guess. Way too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asyulus Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Way too much. Then what should it be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrFanaticGuy34 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 I don't think it's way too much...I think $750M WW is a respectable number for a third outing. Also..we have to keep in mind about China....and if SW:EP7 overperforms as much as it does...it could bode well for Star Trek 3. I'll go safe and say...$620-640M WW. Probably better WOM and the goodwill from the last 2 predecessors will propel this one. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Were the previous Treks released in China? If it makes another decent OS jump i can see it finishing with close to $600m. Only if it's released in China and makes at least close to $100m, then it might make it to $700m. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrFanaticGuy34 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Were the previous Treks released in China? If it makes another decent OS jump i can see it finishing with close to $600m. Only if it's released in China and makes at least close to $100m, then it might make it to $700m. Yeah, they both were. The first one made $8M in China...that was way before the 3D kick-in, and Into Darkness made nearly $57M over there...and that was before China's markets exploded. By the time we get to next year...the third one will see an absolute considerate OS jump from the last one. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asyulus Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) Yeah, they both were. The first one made $8M in China...that was way before the 3D kick-in, and Into Darkness made nearly $57M over there...and that was before China's markets exploded. By the time we get to next year...the third one will see an absolute considerate OS jump from the last one. So I see $100m+ for Star Trek 3. Even $150m is possible. Edited June 30, 2015 by Exterminus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
75Live Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Not really looking to this since the other two weren't that good and basically the same, but I always give the series a chance so hopefully I like this one more 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Craig Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 So if JJ follows suit I just got ask---is the Genesis Device/Planet going to be a plot device in this or will he dare to do something Beyond riffing the originals now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyGossamer Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 So if JJ follows suit I just got ask---is the Genesis Device/Planet going to be a plot device in this or will he dare to do something Beyond riffing the originals now? I didn't realize he was still involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
